Simona Alina
Filed in: Seat | 2008 | Geneva Motor Show | Seat Ibiza

Seat will unveil a new version of the Ibiza lower-medium car at the Geneva auto show next March. It will be offered in both three and and five-door hatchback.

The sporty three-door variant will arrive by the end of next year and will look “almost like a coupe”.

Also the company will replace the Toledo lower-medium sedan with two models: a sporty sedan and a station wagon in 2009. “Seat has never had a station wagon of this size, thus for us this is truly an additional model.”

A model inspired by the Tribu concept car will be revealed in early 2009.

Source:Automotive News

Source: New Seat Ibiza to be unveiled at the Geneva Motor Show

Continue reading...

Or it could be a heady combination of desperation and lust. Now that common wisdom holds that the Russian carmarket is The Next Big Thing, all the major playas are scrambling for a piece of the action. As we reported, GM was looking to buy into the Russian automaker AvtoVaz. As we didn't report (until now), The General got pipped at the post by the French. Blogging Stocks considers GM's failure to hook-up with AvtoVaz a major bummer and reveals that Renault stumped-up $1.6b for the honor of owning 25% of the Russian automaker. Undaunted (or perhaps foolhardy), GM now wants to fill-up with Gaz. msnbc reports that The General has already signed a letter of intent to develop an "affordable car" (as opposed to?). Despite the lack of said vehicle, GM wants to deepen its ties with billionaire Oleg Deripaska's company and expand their theoretical mutual efforts. Yes, well, meanwhile, the Gaz Volga already uses a Chrysler engine and underpinnings (ye olde Dodge Stratus), and Auburn Hills wants in as well. "Leonid Dolgov, chief executive of Gaz's car division, told the Financial Times it was 'no secret' his company was involved in talks with Chrysler." Well if it was before, it ain't now. [thanks to starlightmica for the links]

msnbc »

Source: GM and Chrysler To Russia, With Love

Continue reading...

Ralph Kalal
Filed in: Mclaren | F1

In a piece authored over the week-end for the London Times and TimesOnLine, Martin Brundle complained that the FIA’s decision against imposing a punishment on Renault for having McLaren information “made no sense” after the $100,000,000 dollar fine imposed on McLaren for stealing Ferrari information.
 
But, he’s wrong.
 
Here’s what he had to say:
 
“The McLaren judgment is about negativity and suspicion of possible use of Ferrari information, but no real show-stopper I could see. Even now the decision to punish or exclude McLaren for 2008 has been deferred. The Renault decision is one of an understanding and supportive nature and one only of occasional “strong disapproval” despite clear and confirmed evidence that information was loaded on to their mainframe IT system, including drawings of McLaren’s shock absorber, fuel system, mass damper and seamless shift transmission. Some drawings were printed off and idly laid on a key desk before being handed back after a disinterested glance, said the verdict. I laughed out loud on that one. And just as McLaren protested Ferrari’s floor back at the Australian Grand Prix, Renault used information taken from a McLaren “J-Damper” drawing to seek rule clarification with the FIA.”
 
From this, he concludes that the disparate handling of the two teams has left clouded the extent to which information that flows from one team to another creates an issue.
 
Brundle, a Formula One driver from 1984 through 1996 and a sports commentator and journalist since then, is none too pleased with the FIA, which has summoned him to show cause before them as a consequence of a column printed in the previous Sunday’s Times, in which he was critical of the FIA’s handling of the matter. Brundle says that he believes the summons to appear before the FIA is designed to silence other journalist critics, and that his press accreditation will be affected in some manner as a consequence. 
 
But the question he asks is germane. Why did McLarern and Renault get treated so differently?
 
The answer is: they didn’t. They were treated exactly the same way.
 
Brundle’s effort to draw a parallel between the way McLaren was punished and Renault wasn’t ignores the fact that McLaren, too, was first given a pass. The World Motorsports Council heard the case against McLaren and did exactly what it did with Renault: held that the team had violated the rules, but imposed no penalty. It was only after it became evident that McLaren, including its team leader, had deliberately and intentionally lied to the FIA throughout the investigation and the Council hearing that the matter was returned to the Council and the penalty was imposed.
 
It’s probably true that the FIA has not helped matters by attributing its change in the McLaren decision to determining that the team “used” the stolen information, rather than admitting that it was doing it because the team dissembled. But, if actions speak louder than words, it’s quite clear what’s going on.
 
McLaren has developed a body of articulate apologists in Britain who are, in their own way, as rabidly devoted to the team as the Italian fan is devoted to Ferrari. They may sincerely believe that their team is being singled out unfairly, that Ferrari would not have received the same punishment if the circumstances had been reversed, and that McLaren is being made to pay an unreasonable penalty in the forthcoming seasons.
 
But, the fact remains that no sports sanctioning body can allow teams to get away with lying to the sanctioning body. Cheating, bending rules, and outright spying can be tolerated, at some level, without difficulty. Indeed, the grey area in motorsports has always been wide, and sanctioning bodies have always intrepreted rules flexibly in order to make sure that the ultimate product, the racing, draws an audience.
 
But a sanctioning body that lets a team get away with lying to it loses any control it might have over the competitors. That is the one rule that the sanctioning body cannot allow to be broken.
 
That’s the rule McLaren broke. 

Source:TimesOnline

Source: Martin Brundle asks the unanswered questions

Continue reading...

Looking forward to the days of no longer having to visit a fuel station but tired of waiting for mainstream carmakers to launch a vehicle that can run without the need to fill up? One solution is a range of new plug-in hybrid conversion kits designed for conventional hybrid models such as the Toyota Prius.

Demand for the conversions are so strong that a handful of companies are now supplying such kits, promising to boost mileage of hybrid cars like the Prius to more than 100mpg while also enabling the cars to travel distances of more than 20 miles on electricity alone, reports Automotive News.

The conversion requires installing extra batteries that can be charged up by regular household outlets. The technology is still in its infancy and its unknown how long the batteries will last.

GM and Toyota are two of the major carmakers currently developing plug-in hybrids but the release of such a model from either company is at least several years away.

Source: Plug-in hybrid tech is available today

Continue reading...

This well-padded Mustang is believed to be a prototype for facelift model which will make its market launch in 2009. There’s not much info going around about the upcoming changes in terms of chassis and powertrain updates, but from what we’ve heard, the face lifted Mustang will definitely feature an all-new front end and rear styling details while the interior is also expected to be revised.

Via: WFC

Source: Ford Mustang Facelift Caught Testing

Continue reading...

In a time where it seems every car manufacturer is struggling to turn a profit, Kia has proven itself as one of the fastest growing automakers in the world - today opening its second plant in China.

A joint-venture with Dongfeng Yueda Kia (DYK) Motors, the $800 million state-of-the-art facility will provide a healthy boost toward Kia’s goal of selling over one million units by 2009.

At full capacity, the new plant will churn out over 300,000 units per year, bringing the production capacity in China to 430,000. Coupled with the 300,000 unit plant in Slovakia and the completion of Kia’s first North American plant in Georgia next year, the brand is well on their way to achieving their one million unit target.

“This is also a very important milestone in the evolution of the Kia brand in the increasingly competitive Chinese market as Kia Motors strives to be among the top makers in China market by the end of the decade,”

Kia is also planning to introduce a new model for production at the new plant in 2009 and is currently assessing Chinese market trends and conditions before making a final decision.

The new plant is located only 3.5 kilometres south-east of DYK’s first plant in Jiangsu Province, occupying 270,000 square metres of building space on 1.47 million square metres of land.

Source: Kia opens second plant in China

Continue reading...

The Financial Times reports that Toyota sliced production of its full-sized pickup by 29 percent last month, trimming November's output to 18,300 vehicles. Quite how that recently revealed factoid reconciles with last week's statement by ToMoCo's U.S. group vice president and general manager that the automaker had a good shot at meeting its 200k per year Tundra sales target is anyone's guess. I'm thinking Bob Carter's boast was a triumph of hype-fueled expectation over hard reality. And the hard reality is that the U.S. pickup truck market has tanked. Automotive News (AN, sub) reports that flatbed sales fell fat by 10.4 percent last month. To try to maintain the big Mo on the Texas-built Tundra, Toyota is hawking zero-percent financing or $2k cash rebates on the '08 model. In any case, as a non-union operator, winding down production doesn't put a major ding in Toyota's operating expenses. And there's LOADS of profit in the vehicles they do sell. 

Financial Times »

Source: Toyota Cut Tundra Production by 29%

Continue reading...

So Ford’s taking Volvo upmarket. Never mind why. How? On the face of it, the Swedish brand is as suited to life at the top as Volkswagen, whose mighty Phaeton died for their premium-priced aspirations. Volvo owns the sensible, safety-oriented, “car for life” mindspace. While it’s become a full-line automaker, Volvo’s station wagons best exemplify the underlying ethos. And here comes the all-new XC70, and extremely pricey people mover. If Volvo can take their station wagon upmarket, well, Ford might be onto something…

Only a deeply committed Volvo fan could/could be bothered to distinguish an ‘08 XC70 from its predecessor. The new wagon’s rear glass extends further down than the side windows (for improved rearward visibility), and the sloping rear window and “hexagonal style” add a stump of chic. Up front, alternating silver and black rings ‘round the fog lights give the XC70 an outdoorsy, raccoon-like look. Clean, simple, modern, done.

If the words “Scandinavian Luxury” have any meaning, it’s found inside the XC70’s cabin. Organic shapes with smooth, flowing lines intersect with seamless precision. Surfaces are swathed in high quality materials, [optionally] accentuated by warm natural wood. In terms of ergonomics, the XC70’s interior design is like an Audi for long-sighted, glove-wearing architects. Or, if you prefer, the XC70 is the anti-iDrive BMW. That said, while Volvo’s now signature floating center console is logical enough for a Vulcan, the cubby behind remains less than useless.

In the toy department, a liberal hand with the options tick list unleashes Fredrik Arp’s Wonder Emporium. Volvo’s trick pop-up satellite navigation system returns (and then hides). Volvo’s 650-watt MP3-ready Dynaudio surround sound system with twin subwoofers will restore some valuable street cred for teenage drivers. The dual screen (headrest-mounted) rear video system is a much-appreciated palliative for younger family members. And a brace of Sponge Bob fans can rest easy on the world’s first height-adjustable integrated child booster cushions.

Behind Volvo’s trick power tailgate lie more aluminum rails and tie-down points than a dominatrix’s basement (and a useful grocery bag holder as well). In five-passenger mode, there’s 33.3 cubic feet of köttbullar-schlepping. Fold the 40/20/40 rear seats– now a one-step affair– and anal retentive owners are rewarded with 71 cubic feet of cargo carrying capacity. For antique dealer’s grandfather clocks and surfers too lazy to strap their board to the roof, Volvo’s front passenger seat also folds flat. Try THAT in your Jeep Grand Cherokee.

To strengthen the XC70’s case against PC poisonmobiles (i.e. fuel-sucking SUVs) and amp-up the lifestyle marketing angle (wagons ho!), Volvo has raised the station wagon’s ride height to 8.3”, which is HIGHER than a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Volvo makes a point of advertising the XC’s approach, departure and break over angles (19.2, 19.8 and 24, in case you were wondering).

Although most XC70 buyers would no more venture off-road than go fur trapping, the new XC is an amazingly competent mud-plugger. Volvo’s “Instant Traction” part-time all wheel-drive system channels the power where it’s needed, and the Hill Descent Control gets five stars from Off-Roading for Dummies.  

Riding on Volvo’s new large car platform, the XC70’s on-road manners offer effortless highway cruising and stressless pothole surmounting. But when it comes to cornering, the high-riding XC70 floats like a bee and stings like a butterfly. Hustling the wagon is both counter-intuitive and counter-productive– especially if the rear passengers’ digestives systems aren’t fully developed. Sadly, the active suspension system from last year’s XC– which completely quelled the cetaceous behavior typical of crossovers– is a Euro-only option.

Volvo’s 3.2-liter powerplant nestles into the XC70’s engine bay, sideways. The inline six brings yet more honor to the excellence of its basic configuration. The acceleration is automotive cashmere, and the sound emanating from the twin tailpipes under wide open throttle is intoxicating. Unfortunately, the XC70 has gained weight. Pitting 235hp against 4100 lbs. yields an 8.4 second zero to sixty sprint. That’s a full second slower than last year’s XC70 (with a turbocharged five cylinder engine underhood). Worse yet, fuel economy is a tad lower than before.

Aye, there’s the rub. No car can have it all: safety, passing power, handling, practicality, reliability, luxury, excellent fuel economy and a competitive sticker price. If Ford wants to take Volvo upmarket, the brand must become a master of one core competency, rather a Jakob of all trades.

Meanwhile and in any case, the XC70 will please those relatively few fans who can pay the freight. But the idea that this $37k to $50k wagon will deliver massive profits to Ford is entirely mistaken. At this price, the XC70 has to hunt with upmarket German wagons– and it's still a small niche. If Volvo stripped-out the XC70 and dropped the price by $10k (and then some) they’d have a better chance of a major hit. In that sense, the all-new XC70's excellence proves that Ford’s got their Volvo brand strategy exactly backwards. 

Source: Volvo XC70 Review

Continue reading...

By Dale Buss

DETROIT — Oil prices were surging to near $100 a barrel. The housing downdraft was whacking economic optimism with each new report. General Motors’ sales were in the process of dropping by a double-digit percentage. And GM bean counters were putting the finishing touches on a quarterly statement that would yield an industry-record quarterly loss.

But still, it was a good November for Mark LaNeve, GM’s vice president of vehicle sales, service and marketing. That’s because he was seeing a bunch of other numbers, too – the ones that showed significant and sustained upticks in the company’s market share, consumer purchase consideration of GM vehicles, product-quality scores and even the equity of GM’s brands.

And ever the salesman, LaNeve was touring the country, hitting 14 cities for meetings with 40 GM dealers and ladling out the Kool-Aid with the help of a 10-slide PowerPoint presentation that told the story of GM’s comeback and sounded a rallying cry as 2007 was nearing a close.

“We’re getting a lot of stability in the fundamentals,” LaNeve told AutoObserver shortly after his barnstorming tour, “so that when the market improves, we’re well positioned to push through on the other side. We’re going from surviving to winning. We’ve done a lot of the dirty work, and in a tough environment.”

Some industry trackers are agreeing with LaNeve. “Definitely,” says Jesse Toprak, Edmunds.com’s executive director of industry analysis, “GM currently is in the best position of any domestic auto maker in terms of where they are in their turnaround plans and product mix.”

Adds Art Spinella, president of CNW Market Research, “On a relative basis, GM is looking like they finally have their act together.”

Of course, LaNeve’s pep talks were overshadowed a bit in mid-November by GM’s announcement of the $39-billion loss. The mammoth financial hit mostly was attributable to a tax-related accounting maneuver, which eventually could be recovered if the company posts three consecutive years of profitable quarters.

But some on Wall Street interpreted the charge as an indication that GM’s situation was worse than they’d understood.

Then the company got caught up in the subprime-mortgage mess through its 49%-owned GMAC subsidiary. GM’s stock fell by 39% through Nov. 20 from its three-year high of $43.20 in late October, immediately after it announced an epochal new labor contract with the United Auto Workers union. And Moody’s Investors Service lowered its credit-ratings outlook for GM to stable from positive. Investors voted too: GM shares fell more than 6% the next day.

Moreover, GM’s sales cramped somewhat as the year began to wind down. November sales dropped 11% compared with a year ago, which GM blamed on continuing reductions in daily rental sales and softening industry demand. Consequently, the company said it reduced its planned first-quarter 2008 production to a level 11% below first-quarter 2007 actual production.

Plus, when you’re GM, you’re never out of the woods unless it’s 1960. LaNeve and other GM executives concede that there’s no guarantee the company will continue the relatively minor progress it has made so far. There remains huge global overcapacity in the auto business, and economic fundamentals around the world have become shakier. If the U.S. economy alone deteriorates significantly, then all bets are off not only for GM but also for the entire industry.

But LaNeve’s personal forecast calls essentially for the U.S. industry to come in at about a 16.2-million-unit annual sales pace for the second half of this year, down from about 16.8 million in the first half of 2007 and from 17.2 million sales for all of 2006. He sees the low-16s pace continuing through the first half of 2008 as the nation crawls out of its economic woes and then strengthening to the high-16s again in next year’s second half.

And for now, the uncertain backdrop hasn’t prevented GM from making significant progress in important measures of its relationship with consumers. They’re the type and magnitude that suggest GM really might have turned the corner with American car-buyers, after about a quarter-century of recognizing many of its problems but proving unable to turn them around.

Here are the half-dozen building blocks of LaNeve’s argument that GM has entered a new era of sustainable improvement:

Products are better. GM has launched a series of new products over the last two years that are considerably more intriguing to consumers than their predecessors. The overall strategy and all of the products themselves finally bear the full imprimatur of Vice Chairman Robert Lutz, who joined GM six years ago to take over as product-development czar.

These winning new GM offerings include the entire Saturn lineup, the Lambda-platform crossover vehicles including the Buick Enclave, new full-size Chevy Silverado and GMC Sierra pickups, new Chevy Tahoe and GMC Yukon full-size SUVs, and the new Cadillac CTS mid-size sedan. And already, there are signs that the just-introduced, new-inside-and-out Chevrolet Malibu compact will be joining this roster of good-news producers.

“It’s really encouraging,” LaNeve says of the products. “All of them have been critically acclaimed. And we’ve gained retail share with every one of these products.”

Quality of GM products has improved strongly enough, and consistently enough, that it now has become a clear advantage to the company rather than just a wash, as a few years ago, or a heavy liability as it remained even a decade ago. J.D. Power & Associates’ closely watched customer-satisfaction ratings, in fact, have Buick, Cadillac and Saturn ranked among the industry’s top six brands, and none of GM’s brands is ranked below the industry average (though Toyota, Ford and Chrysler brands are).

And LaNeve claims that GM is far from an also-ran in turning “green” as well. Its Chevy lineup boasts improved fuel economy across the board, for example; GM is bringing out more hybrids; and there’s the possibility that it may soon announce a decision to produce the Volt, a plug-in hybrid.

The best illustration of consumers’ rising perceptions of GM products is a chart that LaNeve used in his dealer presentation that lists the changing reasons consumers buy GM. In both 2003 and 2004, according to company research, the top reason cited by GM purchasers was “rebate / incentives,” with “value for the money” ranking as the No. 2 motive in each of those years. Apparent consumer indifference to GM’s products per se was indicated by the fact that “exterior styling” placed fourth among reasons for purchase in 2004 and, by 2005, had dipped to fifth place.

What a difference two years can make. By 2006, “exterior styling” had surged to first place in GM customers’ reasons for purchase, and it has kept first place this year. By contrast, “rebate /  incentives” faded to fifth place in 2006 and has dropped off the top-five chart completely this year.

During this year’s first quarter, GM purchasers were citing these top five motives in order: “exterior styling,” “value for the money,” “fuel economy,” “dependability / reliability,” and “dealership sales experience.” Each of the top four, in fact, echoes something about the desirability and quality of GM’s products in consumers’ eyes

Market share is inching up. Not surprisingly given the improvement in GM’s lineup and in consumers’ perceptions, the company’s market share is trending up as well. And while much was made earlier this year of Toyota’s finally exceeding GM in overall global unit sales, the fact is that, since the first quarter, GM has retaken a slim edge over Toyota in worldwide volume.

A gradual resurgence in the U.S. market has been a significant reason. “Our overall [U.S.] retail market share has been remarkably steady over the last 28 months,” LaNeve notes. It has inched upward since mid-2005, in fact, to 22.9% as of October. And over the last three months, GM’s share actually has risen to around 25%, up a full percentage point from a year ago.

The biggest reasons are GM’s outstanding performance in segments of the SUV business. GM’s share of the large-SUV market has risen to about 79% lately from just around 70% a year ago. And GM now has a 23% chunk of the crossover market, up from only about 10% a year ago.

But in the car market, GM has fared worse, with its share falling south of 15% for the last few months after holding at above the 15% level for most of the last two years.

Retail pricing has firmed. GM finally has gotten a hook into its labor-cost situation with the new agreement reached with the United Auto Workers’ union after a two-day strike in October – a pact that the union since has basically replicated with Chrysler and Ford. Among other things, the accord will allow GM finally to dial back some of the built-in escalations in labor costs that had threatened its very survival.

But on the other side of the profit-and-loss equation, GM already was improving its pricing. More desirable products have certainly enabled that. Even more important has been GM’s determination to wean its buyers off of the vicious cycle of rebate anticipation that began in 2001, when the company’s huge incentive program helped keep the American economy humming post-9/11, and 2005, when the company delighted buyers by offering them same-as-employee discounts.

LaNeve used two sets of figures with dealers to drive home his point. The first was a graph showing the decline in GM’s per-unit incentive spending, depicting a huge drop-off from its peak of $4,197 in 2004 down to $3.097 for 2007 to-date; that compared with an overall industry peak of just $2,639 in 2004 and the industry’s $2,457 per unit so far this year.

The other set of numbers was the average transaction price. Since 2004, GM’s has risen by a total of 4.7%, while the industry average was 3.8%, and Toyota’s has increased by just 1.1%

Daily-rental business is down. GM and Ford have made a concerted effort lately to restructure their participation in the fleet business, particularly daily-rental vehicles purchased by Hertz, Avis and the other car-rental companies. Over the previous  several years, GM had used fleet sales as a convenient outlet for keeping its factories humming, even though daily-rental companies typically were buying up base versions of vehicles that, in turn, would bring down the residual value of those models when they were sold at auction after their turns in rental fleets. The whole exercise hurt GM’s brands and its profitability.

But over the last couple of years, GM has made huge cuts in sales to the daily-rent business, whacking it down from more than 800,000 vehicles a year to the current level of about 560,000 to 570,000 annually.

“We’ve raised prices, and our partners have taken fewer vehicles,” LaNeve says. “So the economics of the business have improved dramatically.”

Brand health is improving. All of the above, of course, adds up to improving prospects for most of GM’s brands and individual models in both quantifiable and qualitative ways.

One of them is purchase consideration. “I’m seeing GM’s vehicles show up on shipping lists far earlier in the process than they have in 20 years,” says Spinella, whose Bandon, Ore.-based company tracks consumer attitudes toward automobiles.

When it comes to Cadillac, for example, LaNeve says that the new CTS and the always-popular Escalade are good product standards for the brand, though he concedes that Cadillac’s overall product line is “later in its life cycle.” Yet, LaNeve says, Cadillac needs a “good crossover” as well as “an expressive coupe to compete with Mercedes-Benz, BMW and Lexus.”

Chevrolet’s fortunes have been looking up thanks in part to the strong performance of its new truck products. And LaNeve believes that Malibu gives Chevy the first legitimate shot ever to at least take a bite out of compact-sedan buyers who have fixated on Toyota Camry and Honda Accord for more than a decade. If Chevrolet makes it on a buyer’s initial shopping list, Spinella says, about 40% of consumers now end up buying a Chevy, up from 25% just a couple of years ago.

Meanwhile, new models are raising Buick’s hopes higher than in some time. Maria Rohrer, Buick’s marketing director, claims that the Lucerne mid-size sedan “stands right up to Lexus ES,” while the Enclave compares favorably with the Lexus RX. “There’s nothing stodgy about that vehicle,” she says. “All kinds of people are looking at Buick now in a fresh new way because of it, some of them from aspirational brands.”

And given that Buick just placed second (to Jaguar) in the J.D. Power rankings, Rohrer adds, “that speaks to our quality and image perspective. We’ve always had it but haven’t talked about it enough.”

Saturn’s brand reputation has risen more significantly and sharply than that of any other GM division. Given up basically for dead a few years ago, Saturn lately has benefited from a rededication by GM, an entire new product line and a burnishing of its once-trendy image. If a Saturn gets put on a first shopping list nowadays, CNW’s data shows, about 60% of consumers will end up buying a Saturn. “Those are Toyota-like numbers,” Spinella says.

Indeed, Saturn’s sales were up more than 10% in October over a year earlier. “If they keep going up 10% a year,” LaNeve quips, “That’s like compound interest. It could start to add up.”

Still, LaNeve concedes, continual strong growth by Saturn “will take a little longer than we thought.” November sales, for example, zagged down 17% compared with a year ago, though Saturn was still nearly 8% ahead for 2007 to date.

Moreover, the Saturn Aura sedan that was introduced in 2006 hasn’t taken off as GM had hoped. One reason, LaNeve says, is that GM didn’t spend enough advertising Aura; “We’ve corrected that.” And GM waited until this year to offer a four-cylinder Aura in a segment that sells 70% four-cylinders.

“Overall,” LaNeve explains, “we underestimated the time it would take to get consumers up to premium price points. The average Saturn now is about $27,000 versus about $20,000 before. That takes some adjustments.”

Some other soft pieces remain in GM’s brand architecture, as well. Among them is Pontiac. After a generation of trying to reclaim its traditional identity as the company’s sporty brand for the masses, of course, Pontiac remains – to put it charitably – a work in progress.

LaNeve’s goal is to finally bring the Pontiac brand to a place where consumers identify it with “affordable performance. We’ve got to find the right place for Pontiac,” he says. “And we’re determined to do it.”

Competitors have taken their best shot. One of LaNeve’s most compelling points is that GM is making this progress having already sustained long-anticipated body blows from the competition. For the past several years, while the Detroit Three continued to dominate the high-profit territory of trucks and SUVs, they saw steady incursion into those segments by Toyota, Honda and Nissan. Now, each of the Japanese Three have made major reaches into U.S. pickup and SUV markets and, indeed, have established a significant presence.

But while all major automakers have commenced slugging it out in those high-margin segments, GM and its domestically based counterparts no longer have to look over their shoulders at the prospect of some new market being freshly invaded. “Toyota and Nissan have already played their hands,” is the way LaNeve looks at it.

And it’s not as if the Japanese have just come in and taken over. GM, Chrysler and Ford have stood their ground in SUVs. And in pickups, of course, GM’s share is rising. Meanwhile, the Nissan Titan has disappointed. And even Toyota is having trouble getting traction with its Tundra full-size SUV. “Toyota is finding out that the pick-up market is hard to crack because only about 25% of buyers are appearance buyers,” Spinella says. “The rest have some kind of commercial intent, and Tundra doesn’t play well there.”

“We still need to defend trucks and grow cars,” LaNeve concludes. “There are a million complicated strategies embedded in those goals. But it’s really no more complicated than that.”

Photos by GM
1 - Mark LaNeve
2 - Cadillac CTS
3 - Chevrolet Volt
4 - Chevrolet Malibu
5 - Buick Enclave

Source: GM’s Top Salesman LaNeve Sees the Glass Half Full